behaviour

"...the behaviour of most present day humans remains moderated by magical thinking-type mental processes (lack of integration between the left prefrontal cortical areas and memory), underwritten by sub-optimal cause and effect perception."

Robert G. Bednarik, An aetiology of hominin behaviour, Homo, 2012

Tuesday, 23 September 2014

A 5,400 year "overlap" of Neanderthals with Modern Humans

I don’t have access to the full article yet, but judging by
the abstract (bold italic) this is not an issue. My comments are provided in
plain type, I also quote from the supplementary information (italic). The authorship of the Chauvet Cave until recently was widely claimed to be attributable to AMH however this has been extensively refuted in part by the association of the paintings with Neanderthal footprints. The dating of this site alone poses a serious challenge to the hypothesis presented.

"The timing of Neanderthal disappearance and the extent to which they
overlapped with the earliest incoming anatomically modern humans (AMHs) in
Eurasia are key questions in palaeoanthropology."

They are indeed “key” questions for the discipline; however that
it is so, illustrates the depth of the problems facing Palaeoanthropology and
Pleistocene Archaeology. Even establishing the basis of discrete separation
between so-called “AMH” and so-called “Neanderthal” is far from satisfactorily
concluded. Such a distinction, made subjectively, on the grounds of morphology
alone, is an unstable orthodoxy (Thompson 2014), more so given that species are
more commonly separated on a biological basis – the ability to interbreed. Apparently
it has not occurred to the referees that the authors most basic assumptions are
observer-relative institutionalised facts having no independent existence
outside of the discipline and questionable worth with regard to the past that
they attempt to describe. Further, a “Neanderthal” disappearance has not been
proven, indeed the opposite appears to be the case. It has now been amply
demonstrated that “Neanderthal” genes and autapomorphies persist to the present
day. This presents a big problem for the discipline because until recently it
has largely subscribed to the theory that AMH developed out of Africa unable to
interbreed with their contemporaries which is clearly no longer a sustainable
position. All models of a reticular gene flow are in fundamental agreement with
Weidenreich’s original trellis diagram of 1946 and are therefore multi-regional
(Bednarik 2011).

The original
“replacement theory” has now been replaced with a new “replacement theory”; the
“idea” that AMH replaced the resident population, “albeit with some interbreeding”.
This is the idea that the paper reviewed here appears to seek to prove and
since the referees are likely to also subscribe to the consensus view this
unscientific approach has not been challenged. The very premise of the paper is
false and unscientific since it sets out to prove rather than test. Genetic
analysis suggests that “Neanderthal” genes persist in Europeans, Asians and
Papuans but not Africans (Green et al 2010, Gibbons 2010). Klyosov (2014) demonstrates
that the genetic data only shows that the Non-African and African haplogroups
had a common ancestor 160,000 years ago. In other words it appears that it is
precisely Africans that had the least contact with Europeans. Countless palaeoanthropologists,
archaeologists and geneticists are either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting
the genetic data, in a series of publications essentially regurgitating the now
thoroughly discredited work described in the 1987 Cann et al paper which also
appeared in… Nature! For instance, the Cann team made the unsubstantiated and thoroughly
mistaken assumption that genetic diversity equated to ancestory. (See also my
first blog post for more criticism of the Cann paper in“Where
did modern humans come from”). To
add insult to injury, a follow up paper by several of the Cann team (but absent
Cann) whilst recognising many of the weakness of the original paper, still got
it wrong. According to Klyosov:

“This is again a repetition of the common
fundamental mistake by the proponents of the OOA concept, that if one
population is more ancient then the other, the first must be an ancestral with
respect to the second one. My uncle is older than me, but he is not my
ancestor.”

As he explains, later migrations into Africa (3,000 years
ago and less) deal further irrecoverable blows to the Cann paper:

“Did they add to the “genetic
diversity” in Africa? Sure they did. Furthermore, they migrated to the
Sub-Saharan region, where Cann et al. (1987) sampled mtDNA and found a “high
genetic diversity.””

Oh dear.

One of the key reasons that the OOA theory gained such
popular support (putting aside for a moment the reference to the bible) was the
idea that it underpinned the concept of a single humanity. However, as Bednarik
and Kuckenburg noted it does so with frightening implications (Bednarik 2011).
At best this “triumph” would have come at a terrible cost to other humans and
at worst it endorses competition to the point of extinction carrying with it the
potential to rationalise genocide. The “Leaky replacement” theory whilst
conceding that there was some “gene flow” still implies that “anatomically
modern humans” out competed Neanderthals to the point of extinction.

"Determining the spatiotemporal relationship between the two populations
is crucial if we are to understand the processes, timing and reasons leading to
the disappearance of Neanderthals and the likelihood of cultural and genetic
exchange."

Had Professor Higham et al applied taphonomic logic here
they soon would have realised their fundamental error. The archaeological
“pattern” of evidence is nothing more than a reflection of environmental
degradation, research biases, random uncontrolled chance findings, etc., and
should NOT be assumed to be representative of any “real” pattern. Even if
Higham et al were able to correctly identify the emic properties of remnant
artefacts which would allow them to confidently ascribe them to separate ethnic
cultures, any “overlap” identified is meaningless.

Assuming that there were two distinct or discrete
populations how would Higham et al be able to tell them apart from their
respective archaeological signatures? They use technological indices and
conflate these designations not only with distinct ethnic cultures, but
remarkably biological separation.

The caveat underpinning the paper is revealed in the
supplementary information:

“The majority of
specialists agree that the European Mousterian technocomplex was probably
produced by Neanderthals. In other parts of Eurasia this association is also
accepted, although the link remains to be proven, since it is known that AMHs
and Neanderthals produced similar Mousterian lithic tools in the Near East
prior to the initial Upper Palaeolithic. This is unsurprising given the Middle
Stone Age record in Africa. For the purpose of this paper, however, we have
assumed that Neanderthals produced Mousterian industries.”

Incredibly then according to their own conclusions the
authorship of “Mousterian” artefacts from Mount Carmel alone undermines their fundamental
assumption: that is, the key finding of the paper is made worthless! The authors have done nothing to demonstrate “the
disappearance of Neanderthals” but rather performed some dating of Palaeolithic
sites across Europe.

With regard to the “likelihood of genetic exchange”, it is
noteworthy that Higham and colleagues fail to propose a parsimonious scenario
which would account for the extent of preservation of “Neanderthal” DNA and autapomorphies
in present day humans.

“Serious technical challenges, however, have hindered reliable dating
of the period, as the radiocarbon method reaches its limit at ~50,000 years ago.
Here we apply improved accelerator mass spectrometry 14C techniques to
construct robust chronologies from 40 key Mousterian and Neanderthal
archaeological sites, ranging from Russia to Spain. Bayesian age modelling was
used to generate probability distribution functions to determine the latest
appearance date. We show that the Mousterian ended by 41,030–39,260 calibrated
years bp (at 95.4% probability) across Europe.”

Let’s rephrase that, Higham et al show that for the narrow range of sites
sampled those attributed to the “Mousterian” are mostly dated to before 40,000 years ago and those commonly not attributed to this typology are mostly dated to after about
40,000 years ago. That’s to say they have measured the probability that
institutionalised researchers can conformably identify stone artefacts
according to the preferred unstable orthodoxy of constructed typological
chronologies.

“We also demonstrate that
succeeding ‘transitional’ archaeological industries, one of which has been
linked with Neanderthals (Châtelperronian)4, end at a similar time.”

‘EUP’ industries arise at sites throughout Europe (Bednarik
2011) ranging from 54,000 years ago (e.g. Senftenberg) to as recently as 8,000
years ago (e.g. Abric Agut). This technological transition, observed in cases
in-situ (for example at Theopetra Cave, Greece, in association with
“Neanderthal” footprints of small children) can be seen as a mosaic of geographically
and chronologically diverse change in knapping methods across the region
tending toward miniaturisation and increased blade production – hardly
biological markers!

“Our data indicate that the disappearance of Neanderthals occurred at
different times in different regions. Comparing the data with results obtained
from the earliest dated AMH sites in Europe, associated with the Uluzzian
technocomplex, allows us to quantify the temporal overlap between the two human
groups. The results reveal a significant overlap of 2,600–5,400 years (at 95.4%
probability).”

Regrettably for Higham and the team their subjective
interpretations of data as technological markers does not imply either the
disappearance of “Neanderthals” or indicate the arrival of “AMH” in Europe at
different times in different regions They simply perpetuate the litho-centric
interpretations and narratives of the mainstream Pleistocene Archaeological
paradigm by finding “patterns” in data which support their view. In doing so,
Higham and colleagues have had to ignore all fossil evidence which does not
support the contention that AMH and Neanderthals are a single contiguous
species which have transitioned from robust to gracile (i.e. domestication
theory, Bednarik 2011). More critically, they have succeeded in demonstrating
that taphonomic logic has not been applied.

“This has important implications for models seeking to explain the
cultural, technological and biological elements involved in the replacement of
Neanderthals by AMHs. A mosaic of populations in Europe during the Middle to
Upper Palaeolithic transition suggests that there was ample time for the
transmission of cultural and symbolic behaviours, as well as possible genetic
exchanges, between the two groups.”

A mosaic of features in fossil skeletons, morphological
transitions from robust to gracile are parsimoniously explained with recourse
to the biological data which indicate neoteny or foetalisation occurring at an
unprecedented rate in the course of hominin history (Bednarik 2011).

By talking about “possible genetic exchanges” Higham et al
indicate that they do not understand the implication of the current genetic
evidence which shows continuity between “Neanderthals” and so-called “modern
humans” living in Europe and Asia and clearly shows a common ancestor for both
Africans and Non-Africans (Kylosov 2014).

The cultural evidence has never supported the idea that
“AMH” arrived in Europe with “modern cognition”. Only the bias filtering of the archaeological
evidence practiced over the last few decades has allowed for the conditions in
which a distorted interpretation of the past has been sustained in academe
(Bednarik 2011, Thompson 2014). All the
indications are that this practice continues unabated in influential journals
such as Nature. That Higham and colleagues can arrive at such a precise calculation for the perceived "overlap" of two archaeo-facts illustrates the depth of the problems facing Pleistocene Archaeology.